A Tale of Two Countries

FacebookTwitterPinterestGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrintShare

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and will lose both.”  Benjamin Franklin’s words are some that will help determine which direction America continues in after this election.  This election truly is about deciding what path we as a country wish to follow– we can continue down the destructive road we are on and become a nation like Great Britain, who was once the greatest nation in the world but over time has become a common one; or we can go back to our founding principles and keep America at the top of every list in every area.

As Conservatives we tend to automatically assume that any plan put forward by Democrats is a destructive one, and vice versa; however, this election is much too crucial to be decided by talking points. In light of this, let’s look at the fates of two countries that started in the same place but went in completely opposite directions.

———————————————-

Country A and Country B had the same beginning: the founders of each country became exhausted by the political elites in their home country, decided to create a new nation based on the ideas of individual liberty and personal responsibility, and fought a Revolution to win their independence.  Countries A and B went in the same direction for a while– each country acted as one people as they grew their nation to the two most powerful in the world; they were independent, hard-working, and weren’t fond of government interference in their lives.  Both countries, though, began to slowly betray the principles they were founded on and abandoned the attributes that made them great.  They eventually reached a point where they had a choice between two separate destinations; two destinations which, once reached, would be extremely difficult to reverse and choose the other.  After much deliberation, Country A chose to go left, and Country B chose to go right.

Country A chose to forsake the principles that made it great and instead decided to follow a completely different path than the one they had previously.  At the time of their decision to make a “new” start, their founding documents, in the minds of Country A’s leaders, provided more harm than good in regard to the direction they wished to go.  Rather than go back to the ideas and principles that made them great in the first place, Country A viewed abandoning those attributes as the only inroad to future success.  One of the most pointed traits of the new start was putting higher taxes on higher income earners; not only did this discourage people who dreamed of becoming successful, but it also encouraged people to build their businesses elsewhere.  Job growth in Country A continued to decline as businesses opened new factories and offices in countries with lower taxes on the wealthy, leading Country A into a seemingly eternal depression.  Those who dared to be successful and comply with unfair tax rates also had to face calls from their government to “spread the wealth around”– a phrase much too inclined toward socialism for many citizens’ liking.  However, it was too late to reverse their decision; they had chosen to go down this path and had to make the best of it now.

Another characteristic of Country A was the unprecedented spending habits of its leaders.  Before Countries A and B went their separate ways, both had serious spending problems; on the path Country A chose, though, those problems continued to escalate.  Now, their national debt was reaching absurd levels and their leadership didn’t seem to notice– or care.  It continued to rise until every dollar that was spent in Country A was directly borrowed from another nation.  Public debt-to-GDP ratio was off the charts.  Country A was so deep in debt that they began working for other countries in order to pay off pieces of their massive debt; future generations in Country A didn’t look forward to accomplishing their dreams and being successful in their own country– they looked forward to slaving for another country because of their leadership’s uncontrollable spending sprees.  Country A’s economy eventually collapsed and left nothing but pieces for the children of the country to pick up.  It was too broken to ever be repaired.  Cries for help from wealthier nations were met with scornful glances at the irresponsibility it took for them to reach that place of desperation.

Perhaps one of the most alarming traits of the new Country A was the fact that they disregarded faith of any kind.  Morals, values, faith:  All were looked down upon as some out-of-touch extremist fad that only those at the bottom would dabble in.  Crime rates went through the roof after a weapons ban because only criminals had guns; abortion rates rose dramatically once people realized they wouldn’t have to take responsibility for their actions; and the traditional family was basically nonexistent after a minority group undermined the entire structure of marriage and made it their own.

This is the picture of a country that chose to abandon their founding principles in exchange for a new way of doing business.

Country B’s story won’t be as cutting as Country A’s– but Country B’s is at the same time more profound.  The path chosen by this country was not one of newfangled notions of how to do things “better” or one that encouraged equality of outcome rather than opportunity.  It was one that took them back– back to their beginnings of individual liberty, hard work, and responsibility.  Instead of trying new patterns of how to run their country, Country B simply went back to the way the founders did it:  The single role of the federal government is to protect their country’s interests at home and abroad, not getting involved in the marketplace.  The leadership of Country B realized that businesses thrive when they are allowed to do business without government regulations weighing on them.  Taxes for the successful and wealthy did not become intrusive, encouraging more people to start their own businesses and more businesses to set up shop in Country B.  Rather than believing in equality of outcome, Country B started once again believing in equality of opportunity.

Country B also came to that fork in the road with a spending problem.  Once they chose their direction, however, the government of Country B got down to business and started reducing their national debt and deficit.  Before spending taxpayer dollars, they scrutinized the recipient of those dollars and weighed whether it was worth borrowing money for.  If the answer was no, they didn’t pursue the issue further.  By doing so, they were able to begin paying off their debt and got it under control before it was too far gone to ever be brought back.  Country B never became enslaved to another nation; they were responsible enough to get their spending habits under control.

Leadership in Country B began to encourage values.  They didn’t recognize a national religion or anything of the sort, but they didn’t discourage people of faith by infringing on their rights.  Country B began recognizing the dignity of human life; they encouraged law-abiding citizens to arm themselves; and they protected the sanctity of marriage that is so instrumental in children’s lives.

———————————————-

This information might seem a little obvious– but sometimes the obvious is overlooked because we think it’s too obvious to mention.  This election truly is about a choice between two destinations.  Take another look at countries A and B and decide which you want for America.

1 Comment on A Tale of Two Countries

  1. Great – let us hope we go back to our founding principles!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

*